Talk:University of California

Ready to start a section on Controversies

Why go by fake and planted data. This is the genuine list of Nobel Prizes won by institutions. University of California tops this list. Its endowment is less than half of Harvard;http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/universities.html

Friends,

I am preparing an item called ==Controversies involving the University of California== and would like to think there won't be a howl of protest and a delete war when I post it. the list is extensive and verifiable and includes such issues as the 1950s loyalty oath, free speech at Berkeley, the bomb, the BP deal etc. We can quibble over what defines a controversy, but i would like to post my list and discuss it rather than fight for its existence.Hank chapot 23:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to list them and their sources :) Be warned though, don't confuse controversial events with "notable" events. --BirdKr 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Did this proposal disappear without a trace or was there an edit war? I'm looking for info on the executive pay controversy, and not finding it on Wikipedia, except in spots (Denice Denton, etc., but not Greenwood, e.g.). Am I missing something? Andyvphil (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the "old" controversies (e.g., the FSM, loyalty oaths, etc.) can be legitimately used to beef up the history section; there's no need to present a straight listing, in any case. I would like to see some mention of the pay scandal there, but it should be brief, keeping WP:RECENT in mind. MRC Greenwood is probably notable enough to warrant an article of her own. I might write one if I have time. I find the dearth of information on the pay scandal odd also, especially its lack of mention at the Robert C. Dynes article. --Dynaflow babble 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page needs a controversies section, in the light of the recent events that have been taking place at UC Berkeley and UC Davis, especially police brutality. They seem have way enough notability, as some of the events that took place on campus have even been reported overseas (see a video report on the n°1 french TV channel http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/amerique/indignes-americains-la-video-qui-choque-6832058.html ). It seems to me that this page needs more information about these extremely famous events and the violent law enforcement practises used on the different campuses (which is extremely different from the common practises in other universties abroad).--69.143.212.140 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think it would be appropriate to include a controversies section. I moved the governance: criticism and controversies subsection into its own section since I don't think all of the topics clearly fall under the category of governance and because I think some non-governance controversies are sufficiently notable to be included but @Eccekevin merged it back into the governance section. Zaelzo (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important to be mindful of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RECENTISM. Just because something has been mentioned recently, or by just a few sources, does not mean it should be on this page (especially if it is related to just one or a few campuses). To be included on this page, it really should be a controversy that is notable just because recent, and has been covered extensively by multiple WP:RSs, and is not undue. To be notable and acceptable on the general page for the whole UC system (which spans almost 200 years of history) it indeed needs to be particularly relevant and sourced well. For example, the chancellors living in free mansions is an issue that has been brought up many times and by many, as seen by the many sources referenced. Other isolated criticism (like the 2008 criticism from one agency with no follow-up, or the one article from 2016 about surveillance with no follow up) probably do not deserve a spot. More generally, specific instances of issues generally make more sense in the History section rather than having a whole section for them. Eccekevin (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that those are important considerations. However, I think that lone incidents that make it to the controversies part of the page should not necessarily be purged. Single examples can be representative of broader trends and can lead editors to add related information in the future.

Regarding the inclusion of development-related controversies: this seems like a longstanding dynamic that is well-documented in general and on Wikipedia. I may have cited recent sources, but that does not mean that the phenomenon is new or that the whole topic should be purged. One could argue that development-related tension is typical of large universities and therefore not sufficiently notable, but one could say the same about the free mansions; many states have governor’s mansions, for example. It seems reasonable to object to various aspects of the draft paragraph, but I think that, in general, the topic warrants inclusion. Criticism of such development projects is longstanding, substantial, and has received significant coverage. For example, the People’s Park article states that a crowd protesting the development in 1969 was composed of 6,000 people and a subsequent related 1969 protest drew 30,000 people.

Regarding the structure of the page: I think there are several alternatives to placing all of the controversies under the governance section. One would be to sort controversies into other sections. For example, the admissions controversies could go under the admissions section. Another would be to create a dedicated section of the page, as others in this thread have suggested. Another alternative would be to create a separate article for associated criticism/controversies, like many other topics have (Comcast, Confucius Institutes, and C++ all have criticism pages). @Eccekevin what do you think would be appropriate? Zaelzo (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

US Rankings

please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges

Request to change the "About" section

The {{About}} section of this page can be misleading. The sentence "For the university known as California, see University of California, Berkeley" mentions that UC Berkeley is also known as "California", which is not true; I therefore recommend that this line be deleted, or changed to "For its first campus, see University of California, Berkeley". I also recommend that the part about California State University be put into a {{Distinguish}} statement. Windywendi (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Windywendi: Cal-Berkeley is widely known as "California", particularly where its athletics are concerned, so that part of thge about section makes perfect sense. —C.Fred (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right, I am not really into sports so I have no idea. Windywendi (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Library system?

I'm going to remove the improper references to "library systems" in the article. As most UC alumni are aware, one of UC's traditions is referring to the "Library" at each campus even when the "Library" is physically organized into multiple libraries. Thus, UC Berkeley Library and UCLA Library. Coolcaesar (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Planning to add an endnote to note the style difference between UC and CSU on definite articles

To give everyone a heads up: Later this year, I'm planning to add an endnote to the articles on the University of California and the California State University, using the efn tag, and with appropriate citations to both universities' brand guidelines, to note the style difference on the issue of whether definite articles are mandatory with the initialisms UC and CSU. For example, the official University of California web site consistently refers to "UC" with no definite article, while the official California State University web site consistently refers to "the CSU" with a definite article. Then I will edit both articles to follow those conventions. Any objections? Coolcaesar (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need to tell readers about this at all? It seems trivial. ElKevbo (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)